Practice question
A defendant argues that an injury cannot be foreseeable because its occurrence was not guaranteed. The relevant risk was reasonably apparent and the injury followed naturally from it. Which is correct?
- Lack of certainty alone does not establish unforeseeability.
- Only guaranteed injuries can support negligence.
- Every possible injury is automatically recoverable.
- The defendant’s wish for safety determines the issue conclusively.
- The claimant need prove no causal connection.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, article2176.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/mar2017/gr_164749_2017.html — Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling, GR 164749, March 15 2017, main opinion: ordinarily prudent expectation at the time of act or default.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_173146_2009.html — Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative v Balen, GR 173146, November 25 2009, main opinion: foreseeability test.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jun2023/gr_254395_2023.html — Davao del Norte Electric Cooperative v Heirs of Lucas, GR 254395, June 14 2023, main opinion: foreseeable intervening events.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.